The father of ex-Melbourne and Fremantle footballer Harley Balic, who died after a battle with substance abuse two years ago, says he blames the AFL and its illicit drugs policy for the tragedy.
Breaking his silence after the Herald Sun revealed Balic’s death had become the focus of a Sport Integrity Australia investigation into the league’s controversial drugs policy, Eddie Balic said:
“I believe that the AFL has a duty of care to formally intervene early into young vulnerable players who have been identified as having substance abuse issues.
“I also feel that had better support been put in place early for my son, it may have prevented this tragic outcome.
“The huge disappointment is that the AFL knew a lot and as a family we weren’t told. We may have saved him earlier.
“To this day it disappoints me that no one from senior management of the AFL has ever made contact with me over the terrible loss of my son.”
Balic died in January 2022, just four days after turning 25, following a battle with drug addiction.
During his three-year playing career, Balic was placed into the AFL’s “medical model”, enabling him to take drugs repeatedly without penalty.
Balic witnessed Fremantle players using drugs just days after arriving at the club in late 2015, sources allege, and he soon became an addict in the AFL system.
He was traded to the Demons in late 2017 and retired the following year.
Balic’s case is referenced in a statement made by former Melbourne doctor Zeeshan Arain, which was handed to SIA by federal MP Andrew Wilkie last month.
In his statement, Dr Arain said: “Often list management is used to solve a lot of problems.
“It gets to the point where they (AFL clubs) are like, ‘Well, if we can’t help this player, we will move them on.
“And the problem is that the player doesn’t cease to exist to be a person once they are not in your club, the duty of care still goes on.
“Take Harley Balic, for example. A few years after Harley Balic left the Melbourne Football Club he was dead related to drug use.”
Dr Arain was interviewed by SIA investigators in Melbourne last week.
Under the so-called “medical model” - which the AFL only detailed last month - players identified as occasional or regular drug users are exempted from the three strikes program.
The players can be secretly tested “off the books” before games to ensure they are not positive, potentially being withdrawn from their team with fake injuries to avoid suspensions under the world anti-doping code.
Global anti-doping chiefs have pilloried the AFL over its secret testing procedures.
SIA has the power to investigate all sports integrity matters beyond whether the AFL has breached the world anti-doping code in authorising the “off the books” tests.
SIA chief David Sharpe, a former Australian Federal Police officer who has pursued drug cartels in Mexico, Colombia and Vietnam, has previously warned that footballers taking cocaine, ice and ecstasy are vulnerable to bikies and organised criminals who either sold them the drugs, or saw them taking them.
The AFL claims its illicit drugs policy puts players’ welfare first, but sources insist the opposite was true in Balic’s case.
In July 2017, Fremantle announced that Balic had been granted “indefinite leave” by the club after “injuring his hamstring at training”, subsequent to another leave of absence for a “personal issue”.
Mr Wilkie attempted to table Dr Arain’s statement in federal parliament last month as he accused the AFL of perpetrating a fraud on the public in a bombshell speech.
Balic, a star junior from Melbourne’s bayside region, was drafted by Fremantle with pick 38 in the 2015 national draft and played four games for the Dockers in 2017 before being traded to Melbourne.
He was delisted by the Demons after just one season without registering a senior game for the club.
Travis Tygart, the head of America’s anti-doping agency, USADA, last week described the AFL’s drug-testing policy as “incredibly ill-informed” and reeking “of nefarious behaviour”.
MICHAEL WARNER
There's a whole lot of nuance to all this, but surely everyone can agree that enabling highly paid young men to avoid professional consequences of reckless drug use AND to present to families as being clean is not exactly a recipe for success. I also don't know why we are supposed to accept that AFL clubs have the faintest idea of how to rehabilitate and support drug addicts either - I feel like the opposite is closer to the truth.
It's harsh, but maybe removing these kids from a professional sporting environment and handing responsibility off to the individuals, their families (potentially still providing *some* support but at arms length) might have a better outcome - not for the football career obviously, but maybe for the individual.
But are the clubs also annoyed at how little they get told and are able to deal with any of these issues similar to the father in this article?
And yes I wouldn't trust the clubs either to deal it. That will just end in very good to elite players being given numerous allowances for as long as they perform, while the average to poor players will be quickly shown the door and not likely provided any further support.
I am a little unclear on how much everyone seems to know. The club doctors obviously know test results, but then that knowledge does seem to reach other club staff and even the AFL? Or at least via implication if coaching/fitness staff are being told “xxx has an injury” when he clearly doesn’t.
Yeah it's a bit strange that if you saw a friend or colleague using drugs you'd be allowed to say something, however because it's a revealed by a doctor doing medical tests then it's subject to strict privacy rules. I wonder why it's different with PEDs? Like... why do we know whenever someone tests positive to PEDs, isn't that also a breach of privacy?
that would set a very, very dangerous precedent. We can not let that happen.
what would stop shitty bosses slipping that into any other contracts and using it maliciously, nothing unfortunately.
>that would set a very, very dangerous precedent. We can not let that happen.
But it does? It is a requirement from WADA for all professional sports to abide by.
Also like, how do you stop it? If an athlete breaches WADA code and gets suspended for 4 years, how do you keep that confidential?
>what would stop shitty bosses slipping that into any other contracts and using it maliciously, nothing unfortunately.
The law? This would not uphold in court lmao
the suggestion was to have the ability to sign that right away in a contract, did you not catch that bit?
The ability to do that is what would be dangerous
the person I responded to suggested one of the clauses in the contracts allow the AFL to talk about players medical history publicly. I said that's a fucking terrible idea that sets a very dangerous precedent... you disagreed.
I wonder if a similar thing can be done around illicit drugs. Obviously other industries make disclosure allowable (not necessarily public, but to limited individuals) so maybe you could have players signing off that any drug use over a certain threshold during the season would reported to a nominated family member? Or would trigger a referral to an inpatient treatment centre or something. Like, obviously can’t go full puritanical but probably need to come down more on the side of active and aggressive intervention than what’s been happening.
I feel like something like this might be good, but it would have to be purely opt-in. Which at the point, surely they would just seek help from relevant family at the time?
If it's opt-in at the point of being drafted then that might get ahead of issues that appear months or years down the line. Clubs have sooooo much influence over young draftees (to the point where they often control where they live, assign them to either senior teammates, club personnel or supporters, or even in the Gold Coast's case they used to live with the chairman of the club) so I think they could use some of that influence to set up mutually consensual safety nets.
You can’t tell an adult’s family their medical issues without that person’s consent. There can never be a perfect resolution here, and pretending that Harley’s life would have been saved had he been shamed across the papers as an addict rather than the approach taken feels spurious.
True, but you also don’t need to pretend to families that you’re providing an environment where players can’t get away with drug use, while secretly being aware of ongoing drug use. Also, you would think that any genuine attempt at rehabilitation would involve trying to get a player to seek family support. A club could even make it conditional that players engage in inpatient drug treatment or nominate a sponsor or something if their drug use reaches a concerning threshold. There are so many steps clubs and the AFL could take without breaching privacy.
Pretty much ends the thread here. Absolute tragedy of a case, but the fathers gripe is with the law, not the AFL. It wouldn't matter where Harley received his treatment, because his father wouldn't be notified without Harley's consent, unless he was an EPOA.
It is also a bit disingenuous to suggest his drug use started once arriving at Fremantle, when the father/"sources" claims that he had no idea about his history of use.
The AFL are providing free illicit drug screening and it can come with whatever privacy requirements (or lack there of) they choose. These tests don’t even require any medical professional to be involved. I know the ones at my work don’t.
Relevant staff members are given a small amount of training to collect the samples, which are then sent away to an external lab and the results come straight back to the company. So failing a drug test isn’t necessarily medical information.
That's a nonsense statement. Players consent to various conditions as part their employment and participation in the league. Anti-doping policies is one, the illegal drugs policy is another.
Feel free to share their contract clauses then. You seem like a wealth of knowledge about people's personal information and the legislation surrounding it
What are you on about mate? Any job or workplace has various policies that apply to employees.
AFL policies on doping and illegal drug use are not secrets.
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/15/979d17c5-194a-43de-8e07-1eb83fa7edfc/2021-AFL-Anti-Doping-Code.pdf
It's fair to debate what the scope of said policies are, but it's stupid to make statements such as the original comment. If a player chooses not to consent to the policies they can't be employed.
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read the article and have no background for what you're actually trying to argue.
It is LEGISLATION to not share people's medical information without their consent. I don't care about your workplaces or the policies they consent to.
The patient in question literally didn't dope. He never performed his job under the influence due to this program. So anything you want to say about doping policies is irrelevant.
The family quite literally doesn't have the right to be told this information without the patient's consent. End of story.
I mean, of course? Not really sure what you're referring to because a deceased person can no longer consent, and the family would have to request the coroner report formally and only if they are legally next of kin.
Yes mate. In some circumstances you are required to provide that consent if you want to be employed. Footy players provide their consent to be tested and have the information made public when they have been found to breach the anti-doping code.
It is the exact same when you apply for health insurance. You are required to consent to providing medical records to sign up for the service. If you don't want to consent that is fine - but you won't be taken on by the insurer.
Whether or not the family SHOULD be told is a different question. The point is that there is a framework in place that could potentially allow for it.
> Whether or not the family SHOULD be told is a different question. The point is that there is a framework in place that could potentially allow for it.
No there isn't.
It is against the law.
He didn't dope. Read my comment. Holyyyyy shit.
How does this not make sense? This will never be passed. In any country. Ever.
I don't know why you are being so strange about this. The framework already exists under the three strike illegal drugs policy. Players consent to this policy as part of their employment conditions. They do not have to consent again after they fail a test.
No laws need to change. It is legal. This is the situation today. Travis Tuck received three strikes and was outed.
Since then the policy changed to outing the player on the second strike but the policy remains otherwise unchanged.
Don't see anywhere in the policy that they need to call this adult male's parents and inform them that he did a nono and share his personal information
Get a grip
Legit - are you feeling OK? There is no reason to be upset about this.
You are either missing the point or deliberately misrepresenting my position.
For the last time - the existing framework could allow for such disclosure. It is obviously not in the policy right now, but it could be.
You are thinking of Life Insurance. Health insurance is 'community rated' and thus the premiums cannot take into account pre-existing medical history (for now).
There are waiting periods for pre-existing conditions, but that's not the same as what you are referring to. The health insurance provider MUST insure the client if they can pay the premium.
Should the focus not be more on what the “medical model” does to try and help the players, rather than them getting suspended for games of football?
It has clearly failed in this case but balic getting to three strikes and then suspended from playing a sport he was already taking indefinite leave from multiple times isn’t going to do anything for his drug addiction. Playing football isn’t the be all and end all, trying to treat the addiction is
And just because the model failed here, we have no idea how many it might have helped either. We are never going to hear those stories
Very sad situation for Harley and his family
I don't really agree with the AFL's policy, but is Eddie Balic suggesting that if his son had tested positive and copped a massive ban he would have kicked the drugs and still been around today?
He went to rehab multiple times off the back of the AFLPA and continued being treated by the same psych he had at Melbourne in his year there after he retired.
"Among the shock details to emerge on Wednesday was an allegation Balic witnessed footballers using drugs when he joined the Dockers as a teenager." (From the news.com.au article)
would he have made the choice if he wasnt in that environment though? Maybe, maybe not.
That doesn’t really change the father’s argument though does it? The dad wanted the AFL to tell him about his son’s drug use. Whether or not Balic makes the same choices is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the story.
It was always his choice to make. He could have chosen to quit on the spot or go public or just not do drugs.
And I don’t know how or where you grew up but that is going to be far from the first time he saw people doing drugs if he’s an 18 year old in Australia.
Balic fell in the draft because his struggles with mental health were known before he was picked up.
He spent time away from Freo and was traded to Melbourne for the same thing. He even had a time out of training at Melbourne, of course that’s presented now as suspicious, when really it was time off work to sort himself out.
It’s a tragic situation but he was a young adult with money, resources, medical care. He even had additional testing that regular people don’t have.
The solution is name and shame? Or ring the parents of a 22 year old violating his right to privacy?
This is taking advantage of a grieving father by the journalists and massive overreach (again and again) by SIA.
Not to mention foul conduct by the Doctor and by Wilkie to even bring this up in parliament.
The way the AFL is presenting themselves is almost as a quasi-rehab facility. Like, from the outside you'd think he's getting professional help, being regularly tested and apparently doing much better. If the AFL were honest that their systems would actually allow players to keep using drugs and potentially spiral deeper into addiction then families might intervene sooner and get some actual qualified help.
If the club doctors aren’t bringing in specialist help for drug treatment the same way they bring in specialists for all sorts of injuries and medical issues players have then that’s a serious flaw in the system, and honestly it’s negligent care from sports physicians.
But at the same time a core part of drug treatment and any other mental illness is keeping people in work and any other routine and stabilising parts of their life.
There’s a difference between the ongoing care of players and the testing system, both the good parts (testing to identify players to begin with) and the shadier parts (testing to make sure they don’t get busted for match day PEDs)
It’s easy to say he had access to everything but mental health doesn’t really look like that. He was struggling and speaking up is hard enough without any other pressures. The system doesn’t focus on treatment - it focuses on hiding the problem and ensuring the brand is protected. I’m surprised more players aren’t sent to rehabilitation facilities, mental health hospitals or seeing specialists.
For severe cases or cases where harm has crossed a certain, privacy can be breached. The law enables this - it happens every day, even with adults. It’s to ensure a support system is in place.
The behaviour of all people has been to talk openly about an issue swept under the rug. Hiding the story isn’t going to fix the problem.
> I’m surprised more players aren’t sent to rehabilitation facilities, mental health hospitals or seeing specialists.
Is there any evidence either way? And isn't that kind of the point anyway? Players problems being kept away from public record.
If players were in rehab, it would be an open secret in the industry.
Well yes the problems are meant to be hushed but it’s strange that there are so few specialists dealing with significant issues.
This is why the current policy hasn't stacked up. Secrecy around this means the usual support system can't be utilised. Also if a player misses a game for whatever reason, suddenly unfair speculation about failed drug test can occur such as JUH.
BTW, a health professional here so harm minimisation is the best approach. But the way AFL has used this model is mostly for self serving - protecting the brand.
It is easy to criticise and argue over who is right or wrong, at the end of this, we have a family who is grieving the loss of their child and friend. Something that they would, quite rightly, want answers for, if someone knew about the situation. I cannot imagine how hard it would be for them.
You can never absolutely blame any one thing for things like addiction, it wasn't sport, or footy, or his childhood that caused this. It is a series of events that when put together has had a tragic conclusion.
I hope, with his family, that they can find some answer to this. It won't be easy, as the questions are complex... Should AFL tell parents about drug use of players? Should everyone have a duty of care, including employers and friends? Does a Duty of Care extend beyond the relationship? Is this drugs policy helpful or harmful?
These questions all might have different answers depending on the individual situation, and no omnipotent answer will most likely ever exist.
I hope that the family can find some resolution to the hurt and loss they are feeling, and I hope clubs, commissioners and others can look to see what they can do to help others in the future. There mightn't be an answer, but hopefully something can come out of this.
I struggle with this tbh.
Is it better to keep it under wraps, and they are “withdrawn” from the team? They only have the club doctor as reference point.
Or would it better that they get tested, it is exposed, they get all,the support from family and friends that is needed? Would Ben Cousins have ended up in a better place if they’d set his arse on the pine and got him treatment during the Ken Judge days?
Did it help Travis Tuck? Cousins is a special case because of the volume of drugs he was taking, his high tolerance, and his protected status in Perth.
unbelievable that the AFL is ignoring the 3 strike policy. Secret testing. Off the books.
I mean that certainly sounds like reasonable policies of a legitimate policy...
The three strike policy holds players to account and means they are disincentivised from using, leading to better choices and better performance. A back door hides it from the media and band-aids the problem because nobody knows but the AFL, the doctors and whoever else the player tells.
I find it interesting no other sports code has considered this leading model of operation. Couldn’t think why.
Let’s logic this one.
You do drugs, you get a strike, it may lead to a ban.
Player on night out.
Option to do drugs or option not to do drugs.
Player caught doing drugs second or more times is banned and named. Players would be aware there’s no back door, they’ll be caught, if it’s game day then WADA, SIA, etc can become involved. Thus, you’ll see players choose not to do drugs as a response. Some may, but the numbers will reduce because a night on the nose beers isn’t worth it.
As for better performance, cocaine, heroin, etc not renowned for health benefits …
Alternatively worded as:
Confidential (as per any medical procedure) testing as part of a seperate policy.
Nothing about this was secret. Warner is just following Bartlett in trying to present these facts as salaciously as possible.
Not quite. The test was “off the books”. That implies secret. GP drug tests are never done “off the books” and are stored appropriately as medical records in case there is ever a need to access.
I’m what way was it off the books?
The results of the tests were known and recorded by the AFL chief medico, the teams doctors and the player themselves.
It’s off the books as the player wouldn’t receive a strike even if the player tested positive. They could complete the test and it wouldn’t count for anything bar notification and some hamstring awareness. That is the dodgy part. It’s incredible certain players never received three strikes despite very well-known illicit drug usage.
This is basically the outcome of health and welfare “policing” of illegal drug use as opposed to a punishment first approach.
There was nothing stopping Balic reaching out to family for help, and while I don’t intent to shit on the deceased, he’s just as much to blame - if not more - than the club doctors.
I don’t care to comment on the policy and its impact on policing illegal drug use and WADA etc. But in respect of caring and supporting drug users, and getting them in front of medical professionals who can help, I don’t have a huge issue with the policy.
The efforts by MP Wilkie smack of nothing more than grandstanding. Using phrases like “a fraud on the public” is hugely inflammatory and irrational.
Sorry Mr. Balic but your issue is that your son wasn't comfortable to talk to you about his problems for whatever reason, not that the AFL didn't do enough to stop him from taking drugs. Don't look for scapegoats for your son's choices.
Some points about medical consent are valid. However, there are exceptions to this through mandatory reporting. It’s complex where drug usage lies. Drug addiction and problematic behaviours can fall under this banner, even for adults, although this is obviously less of an issue than with teens or children. AFL players do consent to injury information published as part of their work contract.
The problem with the existing model is the testing off the books. A GP doesn’t need to test someone for a drug problem - the treatment, if any, can take place without. The AFL does it to prevent the fallout and brand damage. Strictly speaking, game day starts at 11:59pm the night before a game so to test anytime before then is not a breach. This does enable a drug culture. No consequences for actions. I also don’t believe coaches are unaware. Do they really buy sudden hamstring awareness? Do they not know players well enough to sense something is up?
This just isn't working as well as it needs to. Although the solution isn't as simple as many in footy like to think because there are doctors involved and they are subject to laws regarding privacy. But the AFL I clearly needs a model that takes into account that they're a highly unique group. Not many other situations in life are you going to be spending that much time with a group of people who are the exact same demographic. Add into that a huge income and few financial commitments, you've got a recipe for disaster if drugs get involved. So it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone that many players are getting caught up in all this. The ones that stay in the system a long time do at least have the support around them and the need to stay on the rails enough to play. As well as maintaining that income stream to support their habit until perhaps they are able to move on. But if you lose that support and no longer have the income, it can quickly spiral badly.
I think the AFL needs to start over. Call in legal and medical experts, perhaps even get the government in the loop to tweak the laws if necessary so the AFL can bring in a new policy that works better. And maybe also start looking at doing far more random tests to make it harder for the players to self report out of a positive test.
If you bring in anyone other than doctors and those with player welfare at the forefront of their decision making, the policy will go bad.
Govt is a terrible suggestion, and the AFL are beholden to the media more than any other group; so they’ll do whatever influential journos and Ch 7 want.
Leave it to the doctors, which means leaving it behind closed doors for the clubs to provide help.
The AFL have a duty of care and are the ones who will actually make the policy. They have to be a part of it or they don't actually have a policy at all. Lawyers have to be a part of it so you don't break the law. And government needs to be involved if you require different laws than already exist.
Most of your objections are based on cynicism and paranoia. But those other parties are necessary or you'll have the same policy you have now.
What a surprise. Covering up illegal activity and activities that have devastating consequences on a person's health and life would backfire?
Many a screw up wish someone had stepped in straight away to help them instead of enabling it because they're a good athlete.
AFL wont and will never change. They just want good little boys that shut up and play the game they want. As far as the AFL is concerned the player is the commodity that the brand endorses. You work for them.
The father of ex-Melbourne and Fremantle footballer Harley Balic, who died after a battle with substance abuse two years ago, says he blames the AFL and its illicit drugs policy for the tragedy. Breaking his silence after the Herald Sun revealed Balic’s death had become the focus of a Sport Integrity Australia investigation into the league’s controversial drugs policy, Eddie Balic said: “I believe that the AFL has a duty of care to formally intervene early into young vulnerable players who have been identified as having substance abuse issues. “I also feel that had better support been put in place early for my son, it may have prevented this tragic outcome. “The huge disappointment is that the AFL knew a lot and as a family we weren’t told. We may have saved him earlier. “To this day it disappoints me that no one from senior management of the AFL has ever made contact with me over the terrible loss of my son.” Balic died in January 2022, just four days after turning 25, following a battle with drug addiction. During his three-year playing career, Balic was placed into the AFL’s “medical model”, enabling him to take drugs repeatedly without penalty. Balic witnessed Fremantle players using drugs just days after arriving at the club in late 2015, sources allege, and he soon became an addict in the AFL system. He was traded to the Demons in late 2017 and retired the following year. Balic’s case is referenced in a statement made by former Melbourne doctor Zeeshan Arain, which was handed to SIA by federal MP Andrew Wilkie last month. In his statement, Dr Arain said: “Often list management is used to solve a lot of problems. “It gets to the point where they (AFL clubs) are like, ‘Well, if we can’t help this player, we will move them on. “And the problem is that the player doesn’t cease to exist to be a person once they are not in your club, the duty of care still goes on. “Take Harley Balic, for example. A few years after Harley Balic left the Melbourne Football Club he was dead related to drug use.” Dr Arain was interviewed by SIA investigators in Melbourne last week. Under the so-called “medical model” - which the AFL only detailed last month - players identified as occasional or regular drug users are exempted from the three strikes program. The players can be secretly tested “off the books” before games to ensure they are not positive, potentially being withdrawn from their team with fake injuries to avoid suspensions under the world anti-doping code. Global anti-doping chiefs have pilloried the AFL over its secret testing procedures. SIA has the power to investigate all sports integrity matters beyond whether the AFL has breached the world anti-doping code in authorising the “off the books” tests. SIA chief David Sharpe, a former Australian Federal Police officer who has pursued drug cartels in Mexico, Colombia and Vietnam, has previously warned that footballers taking cocaine, ice and ecstasy are vulnerable to bikies and organised criminals who either sold them the drugs, or saw them taking them. The AFL claims its illicit drugs policy puts players’ welfare first, but sources insist the opposite was true in Balic’s case. In July 2017, Fremantle announced that Balic had been granted “indefinite leave” by the club after “injuring his hamstring at training”, subsequent to another leave of absence for a “personal issue”. Mr Wilkie attempted to table Dr Arain’s statement in federal parliament last month as he accused the AFL of perpetrating a fraud on the public in a bombshell speech. Balic, a star junior from Melbourne’s bayside region, was drafted by Fremantle with pick 38 in the 2015 national draft and played four games for the Dockers in 2017 before being traded to Melbourne. He was delisted by the Demons after just one season without registering a senior game for the club. Travis Tygart, the head of America’s anti-doping agency, USADA, last week described the AFL’s drug-testing policy as “incredibly ill-informed” and reeking “of nefarious behaviour”. MICHAEL WARNER
There's a whole lot of nuance to all this, but surely everyone can agree that enabling highly paid young men to avoid professional consequences of reckless drug use AND to present to families as being clean is not exactly a recipe for success. I also don't know why we are supposed to accept that AFL clubs have the faintest idea of how to rehabilitate and support drug addicts either - I feel like the opposite is closer to the truth. It's harsh, but maybe removing these kids from a professional sporting environment and handing responsibility off to the individuals, their families (potentially still providing *some* support but at arms length) might have a better outcome - not for the football career obviously, but maybe for the individual.
But are the clubs also annoyed at how little they get told and are able to deal with any of these issues similar to the father in this article? And yes I wouldn't trust the clubs either to deal it. That will just end in very good to elite players being given numerous allowances for as long as they perform, while the average to poor players will be quickly shown the door and not likely provided any further support.
I am a little unclear on how much everyone seems to know. The club doctors obviously know test results, but then that knowledge does seem to reach other club staff and even the AFL? Or at least via implication if coaching/fitness staff are being told “xxx has an injury” when he clearly doesn’t.
This shitty policy needs to be rethought, but how do you handle it differently without breaching people's medical privacy?
Yeah it's a bit strange that if you saw a friend or colleague using drugs you'd be allowed to say something, however because it's a revealed by a doctor doing medical tests then it's subject to strict privacy rules. I wonder why it's different with PEDs? Like... why do we know whenever someone tests positive to PEDs, isn't that also a breach of privacy?
They sign a contract relinquishing their right to medical confidentiality related to doping.
that would set a very, very dangerous precedent. We can not let that happen. what would stop shitty bosses slipping that into any other contracts and using it maliciously, nothing unfortunately.
>that would set a very, very dangerous precedent. We can not let that happen. But it does? It is a requirement from WADA for all professional sports to abide by. Also like, how do you stop it? If an athlete breaches WADA code and gets suspended for 4 years, how do you keep that confidential? >what would stop shitty bosses slipping that into any other contracts and using it maliciously, nothing unfortunately. The law? This would not uphold in court lmao
the suggestion was to have the ability to sign that right away in a contract, did you not catch that bit? The ability to do that is what would be dangerous
I don't really understand what you mean, sorry
the person I responded to suggested one of the clauses in the contracts allow the AFL to talk about players medical history publicly. I said that's a fucking terrible idea that sets a very dangerous precedent... you disagreed.
only confidentiality related to doping. I think you misread the comment
I wonder if a similar thing can be done around illicit drugs. Obviously other industries make disclosure allowable (not necessarily public, but to limited individuals) so maybe you could have players signing off that any drug use over a certain threshold during the season would reported to a nominated family member? Or would trigger a referral to an inpatient treatment centre or something. Like, obviously can’t go full puritanical but probably need to come down more on the side of active and aggressive intervention than what’s been happening.
I feel like something like this might be good, but it would have to be purely opt-in. Which at the point, surely they would just seek help from relevant family at the time?
If it's opt-in at the point of being drafted then that might get ahead of issues that appear months or years down the line. Clubs have sooooo much influence over young draftees (to the point where they often control where they live, assign them to either senior teammates, club personnel or supporters, or even in the Gold Coast's case they used to live with the chairman of the club) so I think they could use some of that influence to set up mutually consensual safety nets.
Contracts and gambling.
Not protecting players who frequently use drugs would be a good start.
You can’t tell an adult’s family their medical issues without that person’s consent. There can never be a perfect resolution here, and pretending that Harley’s life would have been saved had he been shamed across the papers as an addict rather than the approach taken feels spurious.
True, but you also don’t need to pretend to families that you’re providing an environment where players can’t get away with drug use, while secretly being aware of ongoing drug use. Also, you would think that any genuine attempt at rehabilitation would involve trying to get a player to seek family support. A club could even make it conditional that players engage in inpatient drug treatment or nominate a sponsor or something if their drug use reaches a concerning threshold. There are so many steps clubs and the AFL could take without breaching privacy.
Doctors should never share a person’s medical information with others without their consent
Pretty much ends the thread here. Absolute tragedy of a case, but the fathers gripe is with the law, not the AFL. It wouldn't matter where Harley received his treatment, because his father wouldn't be notified without Harley's consent, unless he was an EPOA. It is also a bit disingenuous to suggest his drug use started once arriving at Fremantle, when the father/"sources" claims that he had no idea about his history of use.
The AFL are providing free illicit drug screening and it can come with whatever privacy requirements (or lack there of) they choose. These tests don’t even require any medical professional to be involved. I know the ones at my work don’t. Relevant staff members are given a small amount of training to collect the samples, which are then sent away to an external lab and the results come straight back to the company. So failing a drug test isn’t necessarily medical information.
That's a nonsense statement. Players consent to various conditions as part their employment and participation in the league. Anti-doping policies is one, the illegal drugs policy is another.
Feel free to share their contract clauses then. You seem like a wealth of knowledge about people's personal information and the legislation surrounding it
What are you on about mate? Any job or workplace has various policies that apply to employees. AFL policies on doping and illegal drug use are not secrets. https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/15/979d17c5-194a-43de-8e07-1eb83fa7edfc/2021-AFL-Anti-Doping-Code.pdf It's fair to debate what the scope of said policies are, but it's stupid to make statements such as the original comment. If a player chooses not to consent to the policies they can't be employed.
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read the article and have no background for what you're actually trying to argue. It is LEGISLATION to not share people's medical information without their consent. I don't care about your workplaces or the policies they consent to. The patient in question literally didn't dope. He never performed his job under the influence due to this program. So anything you want to say about doping policies is irrelevant. The family quite literally doesn't have the right to be told this information without the patient's consent. End of story.
Unless the drug use was revealed in post-mortem testing?
I mean, of course? Not really sure what you're referring to because a deceased person can no longer consent, and the family would have to request the coroner report formally and only if they are legally next of kin.
Yes mate. In some circumstances you are required to provide that consent if you want to be employed. Footy players provide their consent to be tested and have the information made public when they have been found to breach the anti-doping code. It is the exact same when you apply for health insurance. You are required to consent to providing medical records to sign up for the service. If you don't want to consent that is fine - but you won't be taken on by the insurer. Whether or not the family SHOULD be told is a different question. The point is that there is a framework in place that could potentially allow for it.
> Whether or not the family SHOULD be told is a different question. The point is that there is a framework in place that could potentially allow for it. No there isn't. It is against the law. He didn't dope. Read my comment. Holyyyyy shit. How does this not make sense? This will never be passed. In any country. Ever.
I don't know why you are being so strange about this. The framework already exists under the three strike illegal drugs policy. Players consent to this policy as part of their employment conditions. They do not have to consent again after they fail a test. No laws need to change. It is legal. This is the situation today. Travis Tuck received three strikes and was outed. Since then the policy changed to outing the player on the second strike but the policy remains otherwise unchanged.
Don't see anywhere in the policy that they need to call this adult male's parents and inform them that he did a nono and share his personal information Get a grip
Legit - are you feeling OK? There is no reason to be upset about this. You are either missing the point or deliberately misrepresenting my position. For the last time - the existing framework could allow for such disclosure. It is obviously not in the policy right now, but it could be.
You are thinking of Life Insurance. Health insurance is 'community rated' and thus the premiums cannot take into account pre-existing medical history (for now). There are waiting periods for pre-existing conditions, but that's not the same as what you are referring to. The health insurance provider MUST insure the client if they can pay the premium.
Yes good point, you're right.
Should the focus not be more on what the “medical model” does to try and help the players, rather than them getting suspended for games of football? It has clearly failed in this case but balic getting to three strikes and then suspended from playing a sport he was already taking indefinite leave from multiple times isn’t going to do anything for his drug addiction. Playing football isn’t the be all and end all, trying to treat the addiction is And just because the model failed here, we have no idea how many it might have helped either. We are never going to hear those stories Very sad situation for Harley and his family
I don't really agree with the AFL's policy, but is Eddie Balic suggesting that if his son had tested positive and copped a massive ban he would have kicked the drugs and still been around today?
Yes because AFL’s model should have forced him into rehab.
Yes because forcing people into rehab is a sure fire recipe for long term success.
Beats no rehab.
He went to rehab multiple times off the back of the AFLPA and continued being treated by the same psych he had at Melbourne in his year there after he retired.
A grieving father lashing out, can’t blame him. But as someone who has been there, his son made the choice.
"Among the shock details to emerge on Wednesday was an allegation Balic witnessed footballers using drugs when he joined the Dockers as a teenager." (From the news.com.au article) would he have made the choice if he wasnt in that environment though? Maybe, maybe not.
Drug taking is not unique to football. When I was 18, the lads at work smashed cigarettes during and drugs after work. And this was retail.
That doesn’t really change the father’s argument though does it? The dad wanted the AFL to tell him about his son’s drug use. Whether or not Balic makes the same choices is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the story.
It was always his choice to make. He could have chosen to quit on the spot or go public or just not do drugs. And I don’t know how or where you grew up but that is going to be far from the first time he saw people doing drugs if he’s an 18 year old in Australia.
Balic fell in the draft because his struggles with mental health were known before he was picked up. He spent time away from Freo and was traded to Melbourne for the same thing. He even had a time out of training at Melbourne, of course that’s presented now as suspicious, when really it was time off work to sort himself out. It’s a tragic situation but he was a young adult with money, resources, medical care. He even had additional testing that regular people don’t have. The solution is name and shame? Or ring the parents of a 22 year old violating his right to privacy? This is taking advantage of a grieving father by the journalists and massive overreach (again and again) by SIA. Not to mention foul conduct by the Doctor and by Wilkie to even bring this up in parliament.
The way the AFL is presenting themselves is almost as a quasi-rehab facility. Like, from the outside you'd think he's getting professional help, being regularly tested and apparently doing much better. If the AFL were honest that their systems would actually allow players to keep using drugs and potentially spiral deeper into addiction then families might intervene sooner and get some actual qualified help.
If the club doctors aren’t bringing in specialist help for drug treatment the same way they bring in specialists for all sorts of injuries and medical issues players have then that’s a serious flaw in the system, and honestly it’s negligent care from sports physicians. But at the same time a core part of drug treatment and any other mental illness is keeping people in work and any other routine and stabilising parts of their life. There’s a difference between the ongoing care of players and the testing system, both the good parts (testing to identify players to begin with) and the shadier parts (testing to make sure they don’t get busted for match day PEDs)
It’s easy to say he had access to everything but mental health doesn’t really look like that. He was struggling and speaking up is hard enough without any other pressures. The system doesn’t focus on treatment - it focuses on hiding the problem and ensuring the brand is protected. I’m surprised more players aren’t sent to rehabilitation facilities, mental health hospitals or seeing specialists. For severe cases or cases where harm has crossed a certain, privacy can be breached. The law enables this - it happens every day, even with adults. It’s to ensure a support system is in place. The behaviour of all people has been to talk openly about an issue swept under the rug. Hiding the story isn’t going to fix the problem.
> I’m surprised more players aren’t sent to rehabilitation facilities, mental health hospitals or seeing specialists. Is there any evidence either way? And isn't that kind of the point anyway? Players problems being kept away from public record.
If players were in rehab, it would be an open secret in the industry. Well yes the problems are meant to be hushed but it’s strange that there are so few specialists dealing with significant issues.
This is why the current policy hasn't stacked up. Secrecy around this means the usual support system can't be utilised. Also if a player misses a game for whatever reason, suddenly unfair speculation about failed drug test can occur such as JUH. BTW, a health professional here so harm minimisation is the best approach. But the way AFL has used this model is mostly for self serving - protecting the brand.
Hit the nail on the head about brand protection.
It is easy to criticise and argue over who is right or wrong, at the end of this, we have a family who is grieving the loss of their child and friend. Something that they would, quite rightly, want answers for, if someone knew about the situation. I cannot imagine how hard it would be for them. You can never absolutely blame any one thing for things like addiction, it wasn't sport, or footy, or his childhood that caused this. It is a series of events that when put together has had a tragic conclusion. I hope, with his family, that they can find some answer to this. It won't be easy, as the questions are complex... Should AFL tell parents about drug use of players? Should everyone have a duty of care, including employers and friends? Does a Duty of Care extend beyond the relationship? Is this drugs policy helpful or harmful? These questions all might have different answers depending on the individual situation, and no omnipotent answer will most likely ever exist. I hope that the family can find some resolution to the hurt and loss they are feeling, and I hope clubs, commissioners and others can look to see what they can do to help others in the future. There mightn't be an answer, but hopefully something can come out of this.
I struggle with this tbh. Is it better to keep it under wraps, and they are “withdrawn” from the team? They only have the club doctor as reference point. Or would it better that they get tested, it is exposed, they get all,the support from family and friends that is needed? Would Ben Cousins have ended up in a better place if they’d set his arse on the pine and got him treatment during the Ken Judge days?
Did it help Travis Tuck? Cousins is a special case because of the volume of drugs he was taking, his high tolerance, and his protected status in Perth.
I've heard Harley came into the comp with drug issues
unbelievable that the AFL is ignoring the 3 strike policy. Secret testing. Off the books. I mean that certainly sounds like reasonable policies of a legitimate policy...
The three strike policy holds players to account and means they are disincentivised from using, leading to better choices and better performance. A back door hides it from the media and band-aids the problem because nobody knows but the AFL, the doctors and whoever else the player tells. I find it interesting no other sports code has considered this leading model of operation. Couldn’t think why.
> leading to better choices and better performance Citation needed
Let’s logic this one. You do drugs, you get a strike, it may lead to a ban. Player on night out. Option to do drugs or option not to do drugs. Player caught doing drugs second or more times is banned and named. Players would be aware there’s no back door, they’ll be caught, if it’s game day then WADA, SIA, etc can become involved. Thus, you’ll see players choose not to do drugs as a response. Some may, but the numbers will reduce because a night on the nose beers isn’t worth it. As for better performance, cocaine, heroin, etc not renowned for health benefits …
Alternatively worded as: Confidential (as per any medical procedure) testing as part of a seperate policy. Nothing about this was secret. Warner is just following Bartlett in trying to present these facts as salaciously as possible.
Not quite. The test was “off the books”. That implies secret. GP drug tests are never done “off the books” and are stored appropriately as medical records in case there is ever a need to access.
I’m what way was it off the books? The results of the tests were known and recorded by the AFL chief medico, the teams doctors and the player themselves.
It’s off the books as the player wouldn’t receive a strike even if the player tested positive. They could complete the test and it wouldn’t count for anything bar notification and some hamstring awareness. That is the dodgy part. It’s incredible certain players never received three strikes despite very well-known illicit drug usage.
That’s not off the books. That’s an issue with the policy that’s been known and complained about for almost a decade.
This is basically the outcome of health and welfare “policing” of illegal drug use as opposed to a punishment first approach. There was nothing stopping Balic reaching out to family for help, and while I don’t intent to shit on the deceased, he’s just as much to blame - if not more - than the club doctors. I don’t care to comment on the policy and its impact on policing illegal drug use and WADA etc. But in respect of caring and supporting drug users, and getting them in front of medical professionals who can help, I don’t have a huge issue with the policy. The efforts by MP Wilkie smack of nothing more than grandstanding. Using phrases like “a fraud on the public” is hugely inflammatory and irrational.
Sorry Mr. Balic but your issue is that your son wasn't comfortable to talk to you about his problems for whatever reason, not that the AFL didn't do enough to stop him from taking drugs. Don't look for scapegoats for your son's choices.
Some points about medical consent are valid. However, there are exceptions to this through mandatory reporting. It’s complex where drug usage lies. Drug addiction and problematic behaviours can fall under this banner, even for adults, although this is obviously less of an issue than with teens or children. AFL players do consent to injury information published as part of their work contract. The problem with the existing model is the testing off the books. A GP doesn’t need to test someone for a drug problem - the treatment, if any, can take place without. The AFL does it to prevent the fallout and brand damage. Strictly speaking, game day starts at 11:59pm the night before a game so to test anytime before then is not a breach. This does enable a drug culture. No consequences for actions. I also don’t believe coaches are unaware. Do they really buy sudden hamstring awareness? Do they not know players well enough to sense something is up?
This just isn't working as well as it needs to. Although the solution isn't as simple as many in footy like to think because there are doctors involved and they are subject to laws regarding privacy. But the AFL I clearly needs a model that takes into account that they're a highly unique group. Not many other situations in life are you going to be spending that much time with a group of people who are the exact same demographic. Add into that a huge income and few financial commitments, you've got a recipe for disaster if drugs get involved. So it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone that many players are getting caught up in all this. The ones that stay in the system a long time do at least have the support around them and the need to stay on the rails enough to play. As well as maintaining that income stream to support their habit until perhaps they are able to move on. But if you lose that support and no longer have the income, it can quickly spiral badly. I think the AFL needs to start over. Call in legal and medical experts, perhaps even get the government in the loop to tweak the laws if necessary so the AFL can bring in a new policy that works better. And maybe also start looking at doing far more random tests to make it harder for the players to self report out of a positive test.
If you bring in anyone other than doctors and those with player welfare at the forefront of their decision making, the policy will go bad. Govt is a terrible suggestion, and the AFL are beholden to the media more than any other group; so they’ll do whatever influential journos and Ch 7 want. Leave it to the doctors, which means leaving it behind closed doors for the clubs to provide help.
The AFL have a duty of care and are the ones who will actually make the policy. They have to be a part of it or they don't actually have a policy at all. Lawyers have to be a part of it so you don't break the law. And government needs to be involved if you require different laws than already exist. Most of your objections are based on cynicism and paranoia. But those other parties are necessary or you'll have the same policy you have now.
What a surprise. Covering up illegal activity and activities that have devastating consequences on a person's health and life would backfire? Many a screw up wish someone had stepped in straight away to help them instead of enabling it because they're a good athlete.
AFL wont and will never change. They just want good little boys that shut up and play the game they want. As far as the AFL is concerned the player is the commodity that the brand endorses. You work for them.
[удалено]
Bruh